On the perennial divisiveness of Advaita and Bhakti traditions

Prologue: This read might seem to be threatening all grounds you held so far if you deeply believe in a philosophy. To comprehend whatever is written below, all that is necessary is an open mind. That's all. That being said, if you are entirely new to this arena and unaware of the context of this title, voila! It would be easier for you.

Also, referring to an example person as 'him' doesn't exclude a woman 'her' from the possibility in any way, so I presume that the essence of my writing prevails over biases in gender identity.

It is indeed very difficult to map the words and concepts of the English language to the dialect of Bharat. Simply because the approach in which the Western and Eastern civilisations approached life was extremely noncoherent. In the context of this blog, for example, let's take the word philosophy. Philosophy is about creating belief systems. It is a systematic study of general and fundamental questions concerning topics like existence, reason, knowledge, value, mind, and language. When existence, reason and mind are 'theorised,' it creates philosophy. However, if you try to see how it is translated in Indian languages, for example in Hindi, you get darshan. Now darshan is very different from the notion of philosophy, even in vague terms. Darshan means 'to see'. It happens when the perception of a person is raised beyond the usual constructs to experience something more. Out of the higher perceptions comes darshan, spontaneously. It is not something that is thought of to fit the current models of human experience. What reduced the essence of darshan to philosophy is the intrinsic nature of the human mind to settle down with beliefs. A mind feels insecure without beliefs. It doesn't usually dare to question the fundamentals of existence unless it goes through a plethora of suffering. A philosopher weaving out a seductive philosophy that seems out of this world and a lot of people accepting it by getting flabbergasted is no different than a darshanik (one who sees) who tries to express his level of experienced reality and people accepting it into their house of beliefs without ever reaching that level of darshan. While the approach of philosophers and darshaniks, in essence, has got a very different basis of exploration, the people believing in a philosophy or a darshan are no different. A philosopher tries to weave a new concept of daily experiences in his mind by infusing complexity with his intellectual dynamics, while a darshanik transcends the mind to a point to have a bird's-eye view of the mind. The entire context of this blog is not about philosophies; it is about two different darshans—to break down the strifes and hurdles in the path of 'believers' that have created a very wide sense of divisiveness in people in the Hindu fold. Let's look at them.

Two broad darshanas that dominate the Hindu traditions are Dvaita (duality) and Advaita (nonduality). Dvaita was first introduced by Madhavacharya (1199–1278 CE). Advaita was first popularised en masse by Adi Shankara (700-750 CE). The essence of Dvaita darshan is that there is a distinct duality between God (Brahman) and the individual soul, meaning they are separate entities, while Advaita darshan emphasises non-duality, stating that the soul and God are ultimately one and the same, with the world being considered an illusion in this perspective; Dvaita sees the world as real and promotes devotion to God as the path to liberation, while Advaita focuses on sharpening awareness and transcending the mind through direct self-enquiry and other practices to realise the unity of the self with Brahman. 

At first glance, both approaches might seem diametrically opposite. And this perceived difference is the root of a perennial unrest-believers of Dvaita constantly looking down upon believers of Advaita, and vice versa. As I have been associated with both schools for a long time, I have been an observer of this never-ending insecurity of trying to establish superiority of one belief over the other, thereby missing the entire point. In recent times, the unrest has gotten into disgraceful standards. For example, Srila Prabhupada, a highly respected personality coming from a school of Dvaita known as Gaudiya Vaishnava, whose contribution to spreading the fundamental message of Dvaita globally and popularising the Bhakti tradition in households is unmatched, had commented about another unmatched global proponent of Advaita, Swami Vivekananda, in a very derogatory light, claiming Vivekananda had no knowledge, and using words like rascal, to defend his superiority. With the onset of technology and information at the tip of our fingers, knowledge about these commentaries has further aggravated the rivalries between believers, and this continues to unnecessarily ridiculous extents. Does this really have to be so bad? Is this really so divided? Let's find out!

To be curious is an innate nature of the human mind. Ever since a child is born, limitless curiosity is all that we can observe in them. It is different that we kill most of that curiosity in the name of education and disciplining them with our ways of the contemporary survival game. For those who persist in staying curious, it often starts with questioning the nature of existence at some point in their lives, after having gone through continual cycles of joy and suffering in different forms. They look for answers. Unfortunately, the nature of questioning is such that a satisfactory answer is the breeding ground for the next set of questions, and it goes on. Someone who realises the futility of asking questions and getting answers (answers are different based on the level of intellectual sophistication) seeks methods to get out of the cycle of question-answers into something more tangible. Curiosity turns into deep seeking. The only way this seeking can be addressed is by transcending the mind, because it is the mind that filters every input into a structure that gets infused with meaning. To transcend the mind, it is imperative to realise the nature of the mind. 

There are two types of mind—fundamentally different from one another. In one, the intellectual wiring is very sharp. It constantly needs to go into a web of sophistication in information processing to resolve queries. Extremely argumentative, looks for logical arguments in everything. An attribution we refer to as masculine. In another, the mind is not much of an issue, but emotions are extremely dominant. The person with this kind of a mind is very emotional and doesn't find the juice in being argumentative. Arguments and stringent logic mean nothing to them. But when an idea is infused with weighted emotions, they can do the impossible. We refer to these traits as feminine. Note that there is no superiority of one nature over another. These are simply two distinct ways in which human minds function. The world has turned overly masculine in this regard because in a capital-driven world, logic and arguments dominate over the subtle arts and expressions that can't be boxed in logical structures. 

For a mind to which logic and arguments don't mean much, but the weight of emotions does, it's very easy for them to transcend their mind if they deeply invest their emotion in a concept that is perennially superior to them. The existence of that entity is once again an argument on the rational front; it has got nothing to do with the path. This way of transcending the mind with the spaceship of emotional intensity and dedicating oneself completely to that idea is what we call Bhakti, or the path of devotion. It needs to be understood that devotion is an extremely intense way of life. It is also generally regarded as the fastest path to transcendence, simply because there is very minimal interference of the mind in this path. The source of all suffering is also the mind; hence transcending the mind and with it the ego naturally allows the brain to produce molecules of bliss, thereby leading a practitioner to a heightened state of awareness and a constant flow of bliss. It is to be understood that Bhakti need not have any logical framework in it, because it is not predominantly of the mind. For a bhakta, it is important for him to constantly form an idea that there is a God who is always superior. If the notion of superiority for the object of devotion isn't instilled strongly in a bhakta, maintaining the state of devotion is often a difficult job. Hence, a bhakta is closely guarded in the wall of beliefs that continually strengthens the idea of the superiority of a being who is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. He needs to blindly submerge himself in the oceans of beliefs because it is easy for him to maintain one-pointedness this way. Questioning a particular belief held by a bhakta would be irrelevant and often might be counterproductive. In cases where a bhakta gets distracted by someone intellectually scrutinising their beliefs, it can harm their way to progress. The way I look at life, transcendence is sacrosanct to me. Hence, I would avoid all types of argument the moment I see that someone is in the path of Bhakti. But a problem in the world is, in order to seek acceptance and relevance in the present world ruled by sharp arguments and an updating standards of logic in accordance with developing science, devotees started weaving different philosophies, and trying to relate them in the name of science. The moment they coalesce or interpret something that might or might not relate to modern scientific theory, they would claim that 'we know all', 'it was always there in scriptures', and if something doesn't make concrete sense, science is looked down upon by stating that it is wrong. This hypocritical approach has been a central point of widespread ridicule and has backfired heavily, both on their system as well as on science. Ideally speaking, I won't recommend someone on the path of Bhakti to ever step onto the region of scientific exploration. While science is beyond the land of beliefs, into a step-by-step and robust exploration of the objective world, where the moment something gets disproven, a scientist can just throw a long-standing idea behind and move on, bhakti often requires one to be firm with beliefs, because investing strong emotions into a belief is the way to transcendence. Trying to sustain both the ways might be extremely troublesome, both for pursuing the path of bhakti and exploring science.

However, bhakti works only for those who are less identified with their minds. For a mind which is constantly argumentative, constantly wanting logical reasoning for everything in the Universe, pursuing bhakti might not be the way forward. However they seek, whichever line of reasoning they pick up on, they are bound to hit a dead-end. Because weaving loops of logic and getting stuck in it won't help in the quest of life. The answer lies in a space where question drops off, not when questions are answered. Hence, for a person whose mind is a very dominant aspect of persona with little reliance on emotions, it needs paistakingly humongous work to constantly make him realise the nature of mind and its limitations, from gross to the subtle. For him, transcendence happens not with emotions, but with a direct enquiry onto the nature of the mind. The mind is the trap, also the mind is the only way out. Like the constantly jumping and fluttering emotions of an emotional person should be directed one-pointedly to the object of devotion in the path of bhakti, similarly, a chaotic mind filled with arguments and dependence on logic needs to still down, to transcend and look beyond. Hence, there are several techniques of meditation, that takes the mind and breaks down at different scales, eventually leading into prolonged states of stillness where one can transcend the mind. Stilling the mind for prolonged periods automatically pushes one into states of heightened awareness, and free flowing bliss that is independent of any external stimulation. A mind which is trained to become still and deeply introspect itself, can be used for scientific exploration because it would seamlessly float beyond the zone of beliefs, unlike someone in the path of Bhakti. It might be an arduous task, but inherently, a mind trained to maintain stillness is a great tool for scientific exploration because it is independent of believing something and investing emotions to create walls of beliefs.

Let's come to the final destination - the transcendence of mind. Bhakti is a very fast way, often called the fastest route to God. Advaita is a slow process. It takes a lot of churning of the mind to get to God. Because investing emotions need forms, the traditions of bhakti often has got a personal God, with a form. For a practitioner of advaita, emotions mean nothing much, hence there is no persona, God is impersonal, formless. It is to be understood that none of the conceptions are wrong. Both are equally correct. For a bhakta, he always needs to keep his concept of God at a higher place than himself and everything else. It is necessary. This is the fundamental glacier from where the river of dvaita flows. The moment the distinction gets erased in the mind of a bhakta, the object of devotion dissapears. If a bhakta hasn't transcended the mind, such a concept of oneness and non-duality might be very disturbing for him, although union with God is the ultimate state to reach (in some traditions like Gaudiya vaishnava, the notion of union with God is rejected in its usual sense and is replaced with the notion that one needs to be in an eternal mode of service to God and that itself is the goal). In a similar manner, traditions of advaita talks of nonduality, that everything in essence, is one, and that state is achieved in nirvikalpa samadhi, the total stillness of mind, where the self gets completely dissolved, and the mind is transcended beyond notions of time and space, into eternity and oneness, without loss of the state.

Either it is union with God for eternity, or returning into the home of God for eternity, or becoming God, or moksha, all of these ideas reflect only one essence - the ego is dissolved. Once the mind is transcended, there is no notion of the self anymore. The idea of self is just as much a thought as any other. When there is no notion of the self, where there is no mind, the individual experience gets uncaged into the undifferentiated awareness of the cosmos for an eternity, freeing oneself from the cage of birth and death. Therefore, both the paths, either riding through the easy flow of emotional strength, or the thorny and tricky forest of the mind, leads one into the same reality, beyond the mind. Both of them attain to eternal bliss and eventually transcends that into a state of no-experience, because any experience, in essence, is once again of the mind. While one attributes bliss to their personal image of God, the other experiences bliss realizing the nature of mind, without attaching any form to it. Thus, a true Bhakta, attaining a state of bliss, and a true practitioner of advaita attaining a state of bliss are fundamentally indifferent. It is just that the same brain chemistry is triggered in different ways for different types of neural wiring creating different mental structures. However, the illusion of divisiveness and superiority of one path over the other is only with the ones who didn't seep well into their practices, and are too serious or insecure with their beliefs, constantly needing validation of the same, and are very less aware of the essential implications of their path. The chemistry of an overflowing sense of bliss makes the mind more and more still, indifferent to sensory perturbations, and helps a person to reach the ultimate state of stillness, a state of no-mind, transcending everything one had ever known, into the land of nothingness and-all pervasiveness. Getting freed from the clutch of illusions that the mind creates, and realising the true nature of the self, is what is the zenith of evolution. 

योगश्चित्तवृत्तिनिरोधः तदा द्रष्टु: स्वरुपेSवस्थानम्

Patanjali Yoga sutras [1.2,1.3]

May you transcend the mind into the eternal flowing river of bliss and beyond!